RE: Who owns a 8050/8250 with tandon drives?

On Wed, 30 Apr 2014, Martin Hoffmann-Vetter wrote:

The Commodore part numbers not only refer to the contents of the ROMs, but 
also the technology used to make the ROMs.  Different part numbers do not 
necessarily mean different contents in the ROMs.

I have seen Commodore documentation that refers to DOS 1.0, and in other 
documentation the same parts are DOS 1.2.  Commodore's documentation is 
unreliable when it comes to version numbers.  That's why I use the number 
that is contained in the ROM.

By the way, What happened to DOS 1.1?

> Btw, at this time a analyse the bus controller roms. So i found we have the
> DOS 1.2 with the roms 901468-06 and 901468-07. The next version is DOS 2.1
> (!) with the roms 901468-11, 901468-12 and 901468-13. Why is this version
> 2.1? Look into the source code from this rom called 4040.zip. You find the
> reference to that roms! So the 901468-14, 901468-15 and 901468-16 is an
> revised version 2.1. I would say, it exists an DOS 2.0 with the roms
> 901468-08, 901468-09 and 901468-10. But at this time the DOS 1.0 and 2.0 are
> missing.
>
> Look at the DOS 2.5. There are two known revisions. The first one is rom
> 901482-03 and 901482-04. The second one is 901482-06 and 901482-07. Both
> version have the code at the same addresses. No movement is detected. So the
> 901482-06 and 901482-07 is an revised version from 901482-03 and 901482-04.
> But if you look at the "The Complete Commodore Inner Space Anthology" you
> will find a 8050 disk rom map. These labels are not useable for both rom
> versions. The referenced routine "AUTOIT" was removed and all code behind
> change the addresses! So it must be exists an early version 2.5 with the
> roms 901482-01 and 901482-02! This first reevision of a DOS 2.5 is missing,
> too.
>
> Who knows anything about this missing version?
>
> Martin
>
>
>       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
>

wlevak@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org

       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list